Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there is a market out there for places that don't have to follow safety and health guidelines, more power to them.
I personaly, would excercise my freedom of choice and not patronize a venue that didn't follow those regs.
If there is a big lowering of health standards (as there would likely be), it's likely to affect you, whether you dine at a certain place, or not. It's called the big picture.
Free market is a little simplistic in regards to concepts such as public health.
Smoking bans should be there to protect the rights of people all ages, especially children, elderly, and pregnant women, from health consequences that are not the result of their own life choices.
But there should be separate rooms that if completely sealed off from non-smoking area, can permit smoking. These areas should have warning signs required by law to inform of dangers of smoking.
Also if the non-smoking area of restaurant runs full, they should be required to also deny any more smokers even if the smoking area has not reached capacity, so that non-smokers can't feel themselves forced to compromise for an unwanted smoking area
As soon as they figure out a way for smokers to keep their smoke to themselves the problem will be solved.
The pro-smoking lobby and the tobacco companies ought to be devoting their energies to that. Why can't they simply develop something like a lightweight rebreather mask so that a smoker's smoke stays within his own biosystem?
All the anti smokers claim they have the right to eat anywhere and have a smoke-free environment, but what about my right to eat a nice meal in an expensive restaurant without having a bunch of ill mannered brats screaming over the seats in the boioth next to me...
They love smoking bans, but when an owner gets so bold as to implement a brat ban, they loose it....
Yes, that's because most folks only support bans or mandates upon habits or activities that do not directly affect them. If it were some sort of a ban on one of their own behaviors (for instance, no cell phones in public places), they'd be outraged and crying about the way we need to stop trying to legislate their every move.
As soon as they figure out a way for smokers to keep their smoke to themselves the problem will be solved.
They have. They are called e-cigs... and have you noticed the move to start regulating and banning those? How do you justify that? Emissions are simply water vapor. Is that toxic to others around the e-cig "smoker"?
As soon as they figure out a way for smokers to keep their smoke to themselves the problem will be solved.
The pro-smoking lobby and the tobacco companies ought to be devoting their energies to that. Why can't they simply develop something like a lightweight rebreather mask so that a smoker's smoke stays within his own biosystem?
Excellent idea. They can be in their coffins faster. A win for all.
Yes, that's because most folks only support bans or mandates upon habits or activities that do not directly affect them. If it were some sort of a ban on one of their own behaviors (for instance, no cell phones in public places), they'd be outraged and crying about the way we need to stop trying to legislate their every move.
Perhaps health and safety could be used as a guideline? -is humming the same as smoking?.... that sort of thing.
They have. They are called e-cigs... and have you noticed the move to start regulating and banning those? How do you justify that? Emissions are simply water vapor. Is that toxic to others around the e-cig "smoker"?
The emissions aren't only water vapor, and there is no way to guarantee that.
They have. They are called e-cigs... and have you noticed the move to start regulating and banning those? How do you justify that? Emissions are simply water vapor. Is that toxic to others around the e-cig "smoker"?
As long as they aren't getting smoke or stink or negative chemicals on me, I say go for it, e-cig smokers.
Just be sure you have your healthcare squared away so that the financial effects are borne by the user instead of society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....
